Rosenthal

Rosenthal v. Perkins

Good Law
1898 Cal. LEXIS 1041·6 Cal. Unrep. 21·53 P. 444
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 31, 1898Sac. No. 346California1,315 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Haynes, J.

On August 18, 1893, the plaintiffs in this action commenced an action in justice’s court against one James Brusie to recover the sum of $269.82, and procured a writ of attachment to issue, and the same was levied on personal property of the defendant, Brusie. On August 21st Brusie executed a redelivery bond, upon which the defendants in this action were sureties. The said bond or undertaking was conditioned as required by section 555 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and upon its execution the constable released the property. The foregoing facts were formally and sufficiently alleged in the complaint, and the plaintiffs then proceeded to allege that afterward, on the sixth day of September, 1893, Brusie, upon his own petition, was, by an order of the superior court of Madera county duly given and made, adjudged an insolvent debtor; that afterward said superior court made an order permitting the said suit of the plaintiffs against Brusie to be proceeded with “for the purpose of fixing the liability of the said sureties, defendants herein, upon said bond or undertaking given for the release of said attached property, and for no other purpose”; that on September 25, 1893, judgment was…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.